Journalistic Jargon
Three-score years ago we wrote an article for the New York Times Sunday magazine. It was about attacks on Philadelphia police when Frank Rizzo was Philly’s fist in the belly police commissioner. Radical groups such as the Black Panthers were challenging police, but it turned out the shooting of several police over a weekend were the work of conventional thugs.
I need a caption
But ever since, we have read the Times Sunday magazine when the paper comes free. Lately, it seems that every issue includes one story, usually way too long, about some obscure subject, quoting people you never heard of from schools or think tanks you never heard of. The articles are filled with jargon that seems designed to make simple thoughts unreadably complicated.
We consulted Sweeney Katz, an associate BS at Travesty Institute, to help understand such articles. His response: “If you are GenZ, as opposed to X or Y, you may be aware of nativist elements in cultural in-house conflict, especially regarding ruthless infighting over neoconservative Katz and our dogmas.”
Often these represent variant antisemitic authoritarianism promulgated by the globalist class whose agenda represents the populous ethos of traditional institutions. Their insipid communication is often on burner phones that serve a vindictive attempt to disparage coital discourse. At least in the NatCon idiom popularized by Nat Conn and his palpably paterfamilias influential influencers.
To put it another way, in the scrupulously unscrupulous hackivist collective, sometimes known as groypers, there is little agency, although not devoid of moral purchase.
These thoughts are offered purely for existential gaslighting and should not be read out of syntax.
